January 2005 was a landmark month for religion, for it was then, in an open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education, that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was conceived.
As a response to the breathtaking idiocy of the Board whose majority fundamentalist Christian members decided that Intelligent Design (and never was a hypothesis more amusingly named) be taught alongside the Theory of Evolution in high schools, Bobby Henderson wrote a letter explaining that his 'belief' had equal validity with ID. In his own words:-
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
A full copy of the letter can be found here:- http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
The letter is a master-stroke of calm, reasoned silliness. As news of it spread across the interweb new sites emerged carrying its ideas further. One site, in a direct response to Kent Hovind's 'evolution challenge'* set up a $1m prize for anyone able to prove empirically that Jesus is not the son of the FSM.
One central tenet to belief in the FSM, or Pastafarianism, is that global warming is a direct result of the declining number of pirates since the 1800s. Henderson even produced a graph to make the point.
However, in a twist that may be taken as further proof (if such were needed) of the existence of the FSM, it seems that pirate numbers are on the increase.
Now, it must be realised that these are modern hi-tec pirates who bear little resemblance to Johnny Depp. These are really nasty individuals who are armed with sub-machine guns, rocket launchers and fast attack boats - they don't even wear eye-patches (although how one could call oneself a pirate without an eyepatch is quite beyond me).
Having said all that it is refreshing to note that the current news-worthy non-peg-legged-sons-of-sea-dogs are, how shall I put it, not that far removed from the captain of the Black Pearl.
On seizing a cargo ship containing aid supplies bound for Somalia on Wednesday the pirates wandered all over the ship looking for the crew, who had sensibly locked themselves away.
The crew have since regained control of the ship, holding a wounded pirate and caring for him as he was "bleeding all over the ship".
The raiders are holding the captain hostage (he apparently gave himself to them in exchange for letting the crew go free) and one of their demands is to be given another ship as theirs sunk (I can't explain why but I find this extraordinarily funny). They have also asked that the guided-missile destroyer shadowing them sails away over the horizon - thereby displaying an amusing lack of understanding about what guided missiles can do.
As things stand there is stalemate. The pirates and their hostage are in a small lifeboat being shadowed by a hulking great warship and more are on the way.
Maybe it could be time for them to don eye-patches and attempt the Keith Richards walk that has served Depp so well.
*Hovind's challenge states that he will give $250,000 to anyone who can prove the Theory of Evolution. One would think that should be pretty straightforward, but Hovind has a few stipulations:-
NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
No-one has claimed the prize, for two very good reasons:-
1. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to say on most of the points Hovind wishes for it to prove, and,
2. Hovind is in jail for fraud and tax evasion.
Friday 10 April 2009
Thursday 26 March 2009
Fluffy-bunny Celtic Indians
An event has been brought to my attention that has got a section of the Native American population in the States somewhat miffed.
It appears that this years Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert will host 'GO-NATIVE', a dance-athon themed around 'indigenous people'. Celebrants coming dressed as Native Americans will get free entry. They also mention that there will be 'feathered Celts' there as well.
Now, I am not of Native American descent. I am not, as far as I know, of Celtic descent either. So, why am I writing this blog?
Because this strikes at the heart of something that really, really gets under my skin, that's why. For me it is Fluffy-Bunny-ism of the highest order. For some of my friends however, it drives a stake through the heart of their culture.
To explain...
First, the fluffy-bunny-ism.
If one takes a stroll through such New Age-y places as Glastonbury one will be struck by two things.
1. The number of hairy, vacant people wearing brightly coloured, ill-fitting clothing one sees.
2. The number of books, brooches, garments etc., based on Celtic mythology available to purchase at very (un)reasonable prices.
Now, what amazes me is the amount of mis-information contained within these books. So, let's clear a few things up.
The Celts were not a single people. The Celts were a disparate group of tribes that only shared a common style of artwork - beautiful, intricate, intertwining knotwork. Actually, most of the Celtic style of artwork was produced long after the Celts themselves had been assimilated into Roman Europe and disappeared. The Book of Kells, for example, the pre-eminent example of Celtic artwork was produced by Christian Scribes in around 800AD.
All that is really known about them is what was written by the Romans as they conquered Europe - and conquering armies tend not to be the most impartial of chroniclers.
The details of Celtic mythology are very scant, as they never developed a widespread written language. Ogham was reserved for Druids. Celtic history was oral.
So where, you may ask, does all the information for Celtic Shaman Cards, Celtic Ritual Magic, Celtic Divination etc., etc., come from?
In short, it is made up.
However, it is a huge market. It, along with the recent fad for Irish music, hits a spot that English culture doesn't find. All that is written seems to suggest that the Celts were noble people who were valiant defenders when the Romans came. The truth, that over half the tribes saw the light and rolled over to join the wine-and-toga brigade tends to be overlooked, just as much as the removing-the-enemy's-head-and-putting-it over-the-door style of home improvement is.
I find this lack of reality annoying, but I can imagine how much more miffed I would be if I were one of the few surviving members of a culture that has not only been destroyed by an invading people but found my sacred rituals and dress used by that people as an attempt to gain a depth of culture that is lacking in theirs.
Such is the position of the Native Americans and their anger at a small part of Burning Man.
Dressing up as Indians, dancing round fires, playing at being savages, pretending to be shaman - what fun.
Wearing another culture's clothing, playing their music or praying to their gods does not make you part of that culture, no matter how hard you wish it. No modern Western person can become Celtic, can become a shaman or can become Native. These are things you are, not that you can learn to be.
However, pretending to be Celtic is one thing. Pretending to be part of a culture that still exists and that your people tried very hard to destroy is tasteless and hurtful.
It appears that this years Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert will host 'GO-NATIVE', a dance-athon themed around 'indigenous people'. Celebrants coming dressed as Native Americans will get free entry. They also mention that there will be 'feathered Celts' there as well.
Now, I am not of Native American descent. I am not, as far as I know, of Celtic descent either. So, why am I writing this blog?
Because this strikes at the heart of something that really, really gets under my skin, that's why. For me it is Fluffy-Bunny-ism of the highest order. For some of my friends however, it drives a stake through the heart of their culture.
To explain...
First, the fluffy-bunny-ism.
If one takes a stroll through such New Age-y places as Glastonbury one will be struck by two things.
1. The number of hairy, vacant people wearing brightly coloured, ill-fitting clothing one sees.
2. The number of books, brooches, garments etc., based on Celtic mythology available to purchase at very (un)reasonable prices.
Now, what amazes me is the amount of mis-information contained within these books. So, let's clear a few things up.
The Celts were not a single people. The Celts were a disparate group of tribes that only shared a common style of artwork - beautiful, intricate, intertwining knotwork. Actually, most of the Celtic style of artwork was produced long after the Celts themselves had been assimilated into Roman Europe and disappeared. The Book of Kells, for example, the pre-eminent example of Celtic artwork was produced by Christian Scribes in around 800AD.
All that is really known about them is what was written by the Romans as they conquered Europe - and conquering armies tend not to be the most impartial of chroniclers.
The details of Celtic mythology are very scant, as they never developed a widespread written language. Ogham was reserved for Druids. Celtic history was oral.
So where, you may ask, does all the information for Celtic Shaman Cards, Celtic Ritual Magic, Celtic Divination etc., etc., come from?
In short, it is made up.
However, it is a huge market. It, along with the recent fad for Irish music, hits a spot that English culture doesn't find. All that is written seems to suggest that the Celts were noble people who were valiant defenders when the Romans came. The truth, that over half the tribes saw the light and rolled over to join the wine-and-toga brigade tends to be overlooked, just as much as the removing-the-enemy's-head-and-putting-it over-the-door style of home improvement is.
I find this lack of reality annoying, but I can imagine how much more miffed I would be if I were one of the few surviving members of a culture that has not only been destroyed by an invading people but found my sacred rituals and dress used by that people as an attempt to gain a depth of culture that is lacking in theirs.
Such is the position of the Native Americans and their anger at a small part of Burning Man.
Dressing up as Indians, dancing round fires, playing at being savages, pretending to be shaman - what fun.
Wearing another culture's clothing, playing their music or praying to their gods does not make you part of that culture, no matter how hard you wish it. No modern Western person can become Celtic, can become a shaman or can become Native. These are things you are, not that you can learn to be.
However, pretending to be Celtic is one thing. Pretending to be part of a culture that still exists and that your people tried very hard to destroy is tasteless and hurtful.
Monday 23 March 2009
Stop the characters running away
So, with time on my hands I have decided to do what every self-respecting layabout does in times of unemployment - I'm writing a novel.
Actually, I've been writing a novel for some time, but this time I really am writing a novel. At least I've started, anyway - and I feel that should grant me a certain degree of kudos.
Now, there are several issues I have discovered with this line of work:-
1. It is unpaid.
Actually I sort of knew this before I started so it didn't come as too much of a surprise.
2. It is not easy.
Again, I sort of knew this one as well, but I had hoped that the difficulty was because I never seemed to have the time. It isn't. It is hard work, because...
3. Plots don't just happen.
This is new to me. I've written short stories and screenplays before and never had a problem with working out who needs to be where, when and why. Short stories are, well, short. This means that focusing on the story is pretty easy. Screenplays tend to be pretty fluid so, as long as the characters end where they need to be, they can pretty much be left to their own devices.
Writing something lengthy however, requires that I know what is happening from section to section, chapter to chapter. If I don't then something gets missed out or glossed over that is vital for events three chapters further on. As someone whose idea of planning is "start making the cupboard / chest of drawers /engine before reading the instructions, particularly the annoying bit which says, generally in big red letters 'read this first'" I find this somewhat irksome.
4. And this is the biggy, or at least the one that has the potential to cause major headaches the more I write. Characters Have A Life Of Their Own.
This one may sound odd to someone who doesn't write fiction, but it is true. I wrote a screenplay a few years ago for an animated film - it never actually happened but it was fun to write - and I was deeply impressed by where the characters led the story. They would do things on the page that I never planned. Sometimes these ramblings would lead to some really very good scenes.
However, I soon discovered that allowing this to happen in a novel leads, not to very good scenes, but to having to start again as the characters end up doing things for no reason or spending too much time doing things which are interesting but which advance the story not one iota.
I've had to start again three times so far. So, I've settled down and actually started a plot outline. It is quite complicated, and not a little scary. As it progresses I shall add more and more detail in the hope that when the time comes to really write it up I shall not have to spend too much time sat in front of the screen saying "ummm!" until I work out where to go next.
You never know. It might just work.
Actually, I've been writing a novel for some time, but this time I really am writing a novel. At least I've started, anyway - and I feel that should grant me a certain degree of kudos.
Now, there are several issues I have discovered with this line of work:-
1. It is unpaid.
Actually I sort of knew this before I started so it didn't come as too much of a surprise.
2. It is not easy.
Again, I sort of knew this one as well, but I had hoped that the difficulty was because I never seemed to have the time. It isn't. It is hard work, because...
3. Plots don't just happen.
This is new to me. I've written short stories and screenplays before and never had a problem with working out who needs to be where, when and why. Short stories are, well, short. This means that focusing on the story is pretty easy. Screenplays tend to be pretty fluid so, as long as the characters end where they need to be, they can pretty much be left to their own devices.
Writing something lengthy however, requires that I know what is happening from section to section, chapter to chapter. If I don't then something gets missed out or glossed over that is vital for events three chapters further on. As someone whose idea of planning is "start making the cupboard / chest of drawers /engine before reading the instructions, particularly the annoying bit which says, generally in big red letters 'read this first'" I find this somewhat irksome.
4. And this is the biggy, or at least the one that has the potential to cause major headaches the more I write. Characters Have A Life Of Their Own.
This one may sound odd to someone who doesn't write fiction, but it is true. I wrote a screenplay a few years ago for an animated film - it never actually happened but it was fun to write - and I was deeply impressed by where the characters led the story. They would do things on the page that I never planned. Sometimes these ramblings would lead to some really very good scenes.
However, I soon discovered that allowing this to happen in a novel leads, not to very good scenes, but to having to start again as the characters end up doing things for no reason or spending too much time doing things which are interesting but which advance the story not one iota.
I've had to start again three times so far. So, I've settled down and actually started a plot outline. It is quite complicated, and not a little scary. As it progresses I shall add more and more detail in the hope that when the time comes to really write it up I shall not have to spend too much time sat in front of the screen saying "ummm!" until I work out where to go next.
You never know. It might just work.
Monday 16 March 2009
Noah's Ark and Other Lies to Children
Every now and again I permit myself a small chuckle. Just a little one. A chucklette, as it were, directed at some of our American colonial cousins and their strange ways.
I smirk at creationists and giggle at 'creation science', secure in the knowledge that such idiocy would never breach the defenses of this green and pleasant land.
For those who may not know, creationism is the idea that Genesis as written in the bible is absolutely correct. Everything. Six days, light before the sun and stars, plants photosynthesising before the sun is created, the whole lot. Oh, and following the calculations of Bishop Ussher which were published in 1650 the Earth is only 6,000 years old. He reached this age by simply working through the bible and adding up the ages of people who begat other people. Mind you, I think even he knew that was pretty flaky as in order to get an age that would simply not be laughed at he had Adam live to be 950 years old. As a hypothesis it was pretty much dead by the early 1800's.
Then along comes 'creation science', or 'Intelligent Design' as it is sometimes called. In this guise certain amounts of truth are accepted into the hypothesis (please note I am not dignifying it by calling it a theory). This is creationism with some science bits added. Not enough science bits, of course, otherwise the whole thing has to be chucked out, but enough to make it look sufficiently sciencey to the general public.
In 2005, in a landmark ruling, it was ruled unconstitutional that Intelligent Design be taught in science classes in the USA. I want to be very clear on this point: Creation Science and Intelligent Design are not science. Neither allows for testing, neither is able to make predictions and neither, and this is a biggy, have had any peer-reviewed papers published.
So I would chuckle at the inhabitants of a country who would have to go to these lengths to stop lies being taught in school.
My smirking has stopped, however, as a small zoo situated close to Bristol has opened.
The following pieces are taken directly from their website:-
On evolution-
"It assumes that this complexity accumulated gradually and accidentally, with each step representing a miraculous combination of mutations along a path extending all the way from bacteria to human beings."
Evolution is not accidental. Genetic variation is accidental, natural selection is not. Evolution has no goal.
"Life is a wonderful thing, and any explanation of it cannot but involve some belief in miracles: whether at the beginning of creation or natural miracles all along the way. "
Somewhat disingenuous use of language there, I feel.
"Man is a spiritual being, with a capacity for thought and language. Although an animal in his flesh, he has a nature which potentially reflects the nature of God. "
And this, bear in mind, is classed as science.
"Darwinism is a philosophy which attempts to contradict the obvious differences between man and the other animals by suggesting that in the past the differences were much smaller. It seeks to minimise the divine in our nature and maximise the animal, in the hope that it will seem plausible to imagine an evolutionary transition from animal to human."
Darwinism is a description of fact based entirely on evidence. It makes absolutely no case for or against a god of some sort.
On the publication of On The Origin Of Species-
"This extreme disappointment with God seemed to be the final trigger that prompted Darwin to publish the book that he became famous for. He had held, The Origin of Species in manuscript form for some years and this seemed the time to make the radical suggestion that creation did not require God as any more than a remote instigator of life. "
Not only do the above quotes show an appalling lack of understanding of evolution, in fact I would suggest a wilfull mis-representation of evolution, but the final statement about Darwin is simply incorrect. Darwin was forced into publication by the arrival on his desk of a competing manuscript by Alfred Wallace.
On information notices next to animal enclosures supposition is mixed with fact and religion - for example "Why are there stripes on zebras? There seems to be no adaptive advantage since zebras live in open country". Note the lack of information about stripes on herd animals being very effective at breaking up silhouettes.
I have written to Noah's Ark Zoo Farm asking for an explanation of some of these *ahem!* inaccuracies. I don't expect an answer.
I should point out that this place receives tax-payers help for advertising and organises school-trips around the zoo.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/02/religion)
On the bright side I may have found a project to keep me busy for a while. I feel a leaflet campaign coming on.
I smirk at creationists and giggle at 'creation science', secure in the knowledge that such idiocy would never breach the defenses of this green and pleasant land.
For those who may not know, creationism is the idea that Genesis as written in the bible is absolutely correct. Everything. Six days, light before the sun and stars, plants photosynthesising before the sun is created, the whole lot. Oh, and following the calculations of Bishop Ussher which were published in 1650 the Earth is only 6,000 years old. He reached this age by simply working through the bible and adding up the ages of people who begat other people. Mind you, I think even he knew that was pretty flaky as in order to get an age that would simply not be laughed at he had Adam live to be 950 years old. As a hypothesis it was pretty much dead by the early 1800's.
Then along comes 'creation science', or 'Intelligent Design' as it is sometimes called. In this guise certain amounts of truth are accepted into the hypothesis (please note I am not dignifying it by calling it a theory). This is creationism with some science bits added. Not enough science bits, of course, otherwise the whole thing has to be chucked out, but enough to make it look sufficiently sciencey to the general public.
In 2005, in a landmark ruling, it was ruled unconstitutional that Intelligent Design be taught in science classes in the USA. I want to be very clear on this point: Creation Science and Intelligent Design are not science. Neither allows for testing, neither is able to make predictions and neither, and this is a biggy, have had any peer-reviewed papers published.
So I would chuckle at the inhabitants of a country who would have to go to these lengths to stop lies being taught in school.
My smirking has stopped, however, as a small zoo situated close to Bristol has opened.
The following pieces are taken directly from their website:-
On evolution-
"It assumes that this complexity accumulated gradually and accidentally, with each step representing a miraculous combination of mutations along a path extending all the way from bacteria to human beings."
Evolution is not accidental. Genetic variation is accidental, natural selection is not. Evolution has no goal.
"Life is a wonderful thing, and any explanation of it cannot but involve some belief in miracles: whether at the beginning of creation or natural miracles all along the way. "
Somewhat disingenuous use of language there, I feel.
"Man is a spiritual being, with a capacity for thought and language. Although an animal in his flesh, he has a nature which potentially reflects the nature of God. "
And this, bear in mind, is classed as science.
"Darwinism is a philosophy which attempts to contradict the obvious differences between man and the other animals by suggesting that in the past the differences were much smaller. It seeks to minimise the divine in our nature and maximise the animal, in the hope that it will seem plausible to imagine an evolutionary transition from animal to human."
Darwinism is a description of fact based entirely on evidence. It makes absolutely no case for or against a god of some sort.
On the publication of On The Origin Of Species-
"This extreme disappointment with God seemed to be the final trigger that prompted Darwin to publish the book that he became famous for. He had held, The Origin of Species in manuscript form for some years and this seemed the time to make the radical suggestion that creation did not require God as any more than a remote instigator of life. "
Not only do the above quotes show an appalling lack of understanding of evolution, in fact I would suggest a wilfull mis-representation of evolution, but the final statement about Darwin is simply incorrect. Darwin was forced into publication by the arrival on his desk of a competing manuscript by Alfred Wallace.
On information notices next to animal enclosures supposition is mixed with fact and religion - for example "Why are there stripes on zebras? There seems to be no adaptive advantage since zebras live in open country". Note the lack of information about stripes on herd animals being very effective at breaking up silhouettes.
I have written to Noah's Ark Zoo Farm asking for an explanation of some of these *ahem!* inaccuracies. I don't expect an answer.
I should point out that this place receives tax-payers help for advertising and organises school-trips around the zoo.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/02/religion)
On the bright side I may have found a project to keep me busy for a while. I feel a leaflet campaign coming on.
Thursday 12 March 2009
Plasters and PAT Tests
There are two interesting things about urban legends.
1. Everyone accepts their veracity because they either explain something that requires explanation or they confirm ideas about the way the world works.
2. Everyone knows deep down that they can't possibly be real, but when weighed against the background state of general knowledge there is no real reason why they should not be.
3. They are viral.
OK. That's three. So sue me.
So, let us have a little look at a couple.
1. "As a schoolteacher / childminder / first aider I can't put a plaster on a child"
This seems to have started in 1994. The rumour seems to have come from somewhere in UK Social Services following the fact that some children are allergic to the glue that keeps plasters in place. Regardless of the fact that the worst that can happen to the little darling is a slight rash where the plaster sat this rumour has spread relentlessly.
It now seems to be accepted fact among a frightening number of schools and playgroups. I have heard it myself from the ambulance service.
The truth, as stated by the Health and Safety Executive is as follows:-
"There is no rule that says a responsible adult can’t put a plaster on a child's minor cut. Some children do have an allergy to normal plasters. If you know a child is allergic you can use the Hypo-allergenic type of plaster. The important thing is to clean and cover the cut to stop it getting infected."
2. "All electrical equipment in an office must be PAT tested every year".
I had a fire safety briefing, along with most other people in my ex-place of work, which stated that every piece of equipment needed PAT (Portable Appliance Test) testing every year. This was issued by the fire service. Many years ago I worked for Nortel - guess what? Yep! Every year a man would come round, scurry under the desks and test all the electrical equipment.
Even the website set up to guide employers through the requirements says; "This in effect requires the implementation of a systematic and regular program of maintenance, inspection and testing."
The truth, again as written by the HSE:-"HSE’s advice is that for most office electrical equipment, visual checks for obvious signs of damage and perhaps simple tests by a competent member of staff are quite sufficient".
I decided to investigate this following my wife's return from working at a local playgroup. She was quietly fuming as she was told that children could not use egg-boxes and toilet-rolls for crafting anymore unless they had been microwaved for three minutes.
This struck both of us as absurd, but not beyond the bounds of believability. It is, of course, false. However - and this is the real issue - both of us were willing to believe that this ridiculous-sounding rule had been introduced.
What does this say about the faith (and I use the word advisedly) we place in our government that we really entertained the notion that they would actually bring a ruling like this in?
George Orwell - eat your heart out. This lot could make us believe anything.
1. Everyone accepts their veracity because they either explain something that requires explanation or they confirm ideas about the way the world works.
2. Everyone knows deep down that they can't possibly be real, but when weighed against the background state of general knowledge there is no real reason why they should not be.
3. They are viral.
OK. That's three. So sue me.
So, let us have a little look at a couple.
1. "As a schoolteacher / childminder / first aider I can't put a plaster on a child"
This seems to have started in 1994. The rumour seems to have come from somewhere in UK Social Services following the fact that some children are allergic to the glue that keeps plasters in place. Regardless of the fact that the worst that can happen to the little darling is a slight rash where the plaster sat this rumour has spread relentlessly.
It now seems to be accepted fact among a frightening number of schools and playgroups. I have heard it myself from the ambulance service.
The truth, as stated by the Health and Safety Executive is as follows:-
"There is no rule that says a responsible adult can’t put a plaster on a child's minor cut. Some children do have an allergy to normal plasters. If you know a child is allergic you can use the Hypo-allergenic type of plaster. The important thing is to clean and cover the cut to stop it getting infected."
2. "All electrical equipment in an office must be PAT tested every year".
I had a fire safety briefing, along with most other people in my ex-place of work, which stated that every piece of equipment needed PAT (Portable Appliance Test) testing every year. This was issued by the fire service. Many years ago I worked for Nortel - guess what? Yep! Every year a man would come round, scurry under the desks and test all the electrical equipment.
Even the website set up to guide employers through the requirements says; "This in effect requires the implementation of a systematic and regular program of maintenance, inspection and testing."
The truth, again as written by the HSE:-"HSE’s advice is that for most office electrical equipment, visual checks for obvious signs of damage and perhaps simple tests by a competent member of staff are quite sufficient".
I decided to investigate this following my wife's return from working at a local playgroup. She was quietly fuming as she was told that children could not use egg-boxes and toilet-rolls for crafting anymore unless they had been microwaved for three minutes.
This struck both of us as absurd, but not beyond the bounds of believability. It is, of course, false. However - and this is the real issue - both of us were willing to believe that this ridiculous-sounding rule had been introduced.
What does this say about the faith (and I use the word advisedly) we place in our government that we really entertained the notion that they would actually bring a ruling like this in?
George Orwell - eat your heart out. This lot could make us believe anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
